Falsely Accused of Theft
Options
Comments
-
Which law would that be?bunnie1234 wrote: »Even consumer law states that a customer is entitled to get best price.0 -
And did CAB really advise you to give the (unnamed but not Morrisons) store 14 days to respond to your complaint?bunnie1234 wrote: »I wasn't reluctant, I just couldn't recall the name but have now checked and its The Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline. They specifically deal with all consumer related matters and appear very knowledgeable.
14 days to respond to a written complaint?bunnie1234 wrote: »I didn't say it happened two days ago! It happened two and a half weeks ago and I wrote to Head Office two days later and asked them to reply within 14 days, as advised by a consumer organisation.
I am in my fifties although I am not sure what this has to do with anything.0 -
Its funny really...when I initially summarised the situation it was said that there must be more to the story. When I answered questions and gave more detail it was said that the whole scenario seemed made up, due to the detail. There has been huge skepticism and then its been implied that most people would not attempt to get a pie reduced and that I therefore must be a Chav! Ironic really, because the bottom line should be whether its OK for a store to falsely accuse someone of theft, threaten to call the police and then ban them for doing nothing illegal and publicly shaming them when they know full well they did not steal anything. But the comments have been interesting and welcome and it convinces me to tell no one I know about what happened!0
-
Which law would that be?
The Consumer Rights Act is a long one so I will have to look it up and get back to you on that if I can find it. The consumer advisor quoted it to me so I could include it in my letter so I know its in there somewhere.
They also advised me of the "invitation to treat" which in effect means a store offers products inviting you to buy them and if you choose to and pay for the items it then forms a contract, i.e. they accept that you paid a certain price for the item. The quote below is from the Consumer Rights Act and although not tailored specifically to the matter in hand, once payment is made it forms a binding contract. I was advised to mention the "invitation to treat" in my letter, as once payment is made which results in a legally binding contract, the store has no right to either claim you should have paid a different price or that you have stolen as a result of making that purchase.
"The price tag is not a contract. It is an "invitation to treat" ie it is inviting the customer to make an offer to purchase and the retailer doesn't have to accept that offer. A contract is only formed when the shop accepts a payment, after which it can't oblige you to repay any difference between the real and the advertised price."0 -
And did CAB really advise you to give the (unnamed but not Morrisons) store 14 days to respond to your complaint?
14 days to respond to a written complaint?
Yes, they really did advise me to give them 14 days in which to send a reply. Why would I say that if its not true? I have worked in the legal field and that is standard. And in the case of a complaint, a person needs to demonstrate that the store (or whomever) has been approached with a request to resolve the situation. It has to be done in order to go down a different route, to show that they had a chance to reply or resolve it and chose not to. A time limit has to be given or a person could wait endlessly.0 -
-
-
bunnie1234 wrote: »Defamation is written lies and slander is the spoken version.
Libel is written and slander is spoken. Defamation covers both libel & slander.bunnie1234 wrote: »There is a consumer ombudsman and other bodies that enforce consumer rights and can take to task an organisation if it abuses those laws. As someone else mentioned, a store can ban anyone as long as they come up with a "reason". But claiming we were guilty of theft having paid for our items is wrong on every level.
The issue you have with that approach is that they can only help you if the retailer agrees. There technically is no consumer rights issue here - there is nothing in consumer law which gives you any rights regarding these matters.bunnie1234 wrote: »The Consumer Rights Act is a long one so I will have to look it up and get back to you on that if I can find it. The consumer advisor quoted it to me so I could include it in my letter so I know its in there somewhere.
They also advised me of the "invitation to treat" which in effect means a store offers products inviting you to buy them and if you choose to and pay for the items it then forms a contract, i.e. they accept that you paid a certain price for the item. The quote below is from the Consumer Rights Act and although not tailored specifically to the matter in hand, once payment is made it forms a binding contract. I was advised to mention the "invitation to treat" in my letter, as once payment is made which results in a legally binding contract, the store has no right to either claim you should have paid a different price or that you have stolen as a result of making that purchase.
"The price tag is not a contract. It is an "invitation to treat" ie it is inviting the customer to make an offer to purchase and the retailer doesn't have to accept that offer. A contract is only formed when the shop accepts a payment, after which it can't oblige you to repay any difference between the real and the advertised price."
Either you've misunderstood or the person who advised you - who was probably just reading from their website - has misunderstood. There is nothing in the consumer rights act entitling you to a cheaper price.
A contract is not formed upon payment. Its upon acceptance. Although if a agent of the retailer - aka an employee - rang through the purchases and accepted payment then that may be seen as acceptance. Theft can still occur notwithstanding that though - see R v Morris, Anderson & Burnside 1984.
The civil side of it (whether a contract was formed) is a separate matter.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
unholyangel wrote: »Libel is written and slander is spoken. Defamation covers both libel & slander.
The issue you have with that approach is that they can only help you if the retailer agrees. There technically is no consumer rights issue here - there is nothing in consumer law which gives you any rights regarding these matters.
Either you've misunderstood or the person who advised you - who was probably just reading from their website - has misunderstood. There is nothing in the consumer rights act entitling you to a cheaper price.
A contract is not formed upon payment. Its upon acceptance. Although if a agent of the retailer - aka an employee - rang through the purchases and accepted payment then that may be seen as acceptance. Theft can still occur notwithstanding that though - see R v Morris, Anderson & Burnside 1984.
The civil side of it (whether a contract was formed) is a separate matter.
The law is quite clear on the fact that once payment is made by the customer and accepted by the retailer a binding contract is made. Payment cannot be made without acceptance, ie. payment via card or cash at the till, which is when it forms a contract. Theft could occur if for instance the customer put another label on a product and paid less than they should have. But this was not the case in my situation.
I agree that an ombudsman or equivalent, cannot force the store to resolve the matter. But stores do not generally like complaints like this to remain on their record so there is a good possibility they will resolve the matter. If they don't, then so be it. You have to know when to give up.
I have not checked the Consumer Rights Act yet but I didn't actually say it mentioned a cheaper price. I was told it says consumers are entitled to find "best price" for an item. That is slightly vague, but if the advisor was correct, then I found best price by getting it marked down and there was nothing illegal about doing so. I was also advised that a customer is entitled to walk around with an item in their trolley and until they decide to purchase they can put it back. I could have changed my mind at any time. The advisor seemed to know what she was talking about, but obviously I cannot be 100% certain of that.0 -
Some of the posts from OP remind me of my first few weeks doing contract law while qualifying.
Get over it, you've already said you won't be shopping there again, even if they apologise, why waste any more of your life on this.
Stop dwelling on it and move on, there are plenty of other supermarkets and shops to buy produce from.Mortgage started 2020, aiming to clear it in 2026.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards